The answer is a pretty unequivocal no. The tests on SIGG bottles show that there was no detectable leaching of BPA from new and used bottles into the contents. Whatever was in their "proprietary" epoxy liner and their process of application, it did its job. This is not an issue of safety, it is an issue of transparency.
UPDATE: Other bloggers profoundly disagree. Read Real Green Girl, who comes to the opposite conclusion.
Yes, I know the testing was not completely third-party, the agency was hired by SIGG, but that is the way things work.
There is also a lot to be said in favor of lined aluminum bottles instead of alternatives; Stainless steel takes a lot of energy to make, is heavier, and can leach metals like chrome and vanadium. Outside of the BPA issue, epoxy linings of cans have a long history of protecting food from picking up flavors and preserving pH.
According to one chemist I consulted who is quite familiar with the issue, switching from a polycarbonate bottle to a SIGG reduced exposure to BPA by an order of magnitude. He concluded "I'll take my SIGG any day."
Leaching is not really the question, though. It was and is a simple question of lining content. Did the linings contain BPA? Yes, the answer is, they did. Only now, that Laken and SIGG both have a new, BPA-free lining, are we finding this out for certain. ....On one level, if you are selling a product as something it is not, that alone is false advertising. On a more ethical level, if consumers buy a product from you and they believe it to be BPA-free because of information on signs, in catalogs or told to them by a salesperson, and then they find out it is not BPA-free, we suspect most would be more than a bit upset at all parties involved.
Safe? Yes. Transparent and straightforward? No.